The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-06-17


greater number of votes. Would all these things
have been done if the officers and people of the
State had not understood that the
under the A' con.ssutiona Certainly not
This opinion of the people, expressed with all
the solemnity known to the forms of Law and
the usaees of FREQ people. is not to be looked
upon with levity or regarded as of little weight
In a case similar in principle TO this the SUI
preme Court of Wisconsin said while this
court will never allow it's judgment to be infu-
enced by popular opinion. the united under
standing OF the whole people In matter OF great
public interest is guide that any tribunal
may safely follow" (State French. Pinney.
1907. In another case closely resembling this
the court said: Again, the question 10 purely
political No private rights are involved 1t IS
RUE OF law well established that where cues
tons are purely political and depend upon the
construction to be given to provisions OF doubt
1ul interpretation, the court vii. not only give
great consideration to construction given by
the political departments of the State. but will
follow 1t implicitly" people VS.. Supervisors,
100 III. 495).
the courts unhesitatingly accepted the judgment
OF the people as to the meaning of the provisions
OF the Constitution respecting elections The
principle underlying these is as old as
stitutional government, and it is so we'll estab-
ilshed that the courts will not declare the Of
the peopld performed by them or the acts OF
their officers done in their behalf, to be in viola
ton OF the Constitution, unless their unconsti-
nationality is so clear to admit of no doubt
Estate VS.. Cooper, Blackf.. 25S; Beauchamp VS.
State. Blackt, 29s Maize vs. State. Ind.
342 L., NJ e W. r. r. Company We. Geiger, "A
Ind. 1S5; Robinson vs.. Schenck, 182 Ind, 307.1
Those cases establish the principle that, if
doubt arises after study of
the constitutional provisions, in
where the whole people have acted the benefit
of that doubt must be given to the people whose
acts are in question. and their Interpretation
must stand the law, binding the courts
well as every other department of State govern
ment. In harmony with this Interpretation OF
the constitutional provisions under considera-
ton. IS the act OF the Speaker of the House in
canvassing and publishing the returns Of this
election, in the presence of both houses of the
General Assembly, directed by Section Of
Article 5, whereupon Colonel Robertson took
the oath of Office. By this official act the Speak
declared that the people had the power TO I'LL
the vacancy by election, and that they had elect
cd Robert S. Robertson to the Office of Lieuten-
ant-governor This act and declaration of the
Speaker of the House is binding upon every de-
partment of the State government Tho
question whether the Speaker in doing this.
performed q legislative act exercised polit-
ical function as an officer of the government,
is of little importance. for, in either event. the
act is binding on the other departments of the
State government, and cannot be reviewed by
the courts. Mississippi vs.. johnson. Wall,
Ats; Georgia Vs. Stanton. Wall, so; Harris vs.
N. H., 574; Gas Company vs., The City, A Iowa.
sos; parte Echols, 80 Ala. 69S; Dickey VS..
Read, IS ILL.,, 261; Smith vs. Myers 100 Ind, l.
and the cases heretofore cited)
1t was held by Judges Niblack. collars and
Elliot, constituting majority of the court in
Robertson Va. State ex rel Smith (109 Ind. 79
that the question of the right to elect was ex-
clusively within the jurisdiction of the General
Assembly, and as that body in joint convention.
at the appointed time decided that Robertson
was duly chosen the matter must be deemed to
be conclusively settled. the action of that con-
vention is not vitiated by the fact that some of
the legislators did not attend. When electors
or legislators fail to vote or act the votes or acts
of those who do perform their duty control.
Those who remained away from the convention
are justly and conclusively presumed to have
assented to what was done by those who at
State VS.. Swift. 60 Ind. $685. Dillon on Munich
pal Corporations. Sec. 215: County OF Cass vs.
Johnston. Otto 800; St Joseph Township vs.
porations, Sec 499, 500; Louisville Railroad Com
pany VS.. County Court. l Sneed. Tenn, 637 692:
Talbot VS.. Dent, B. Mon. Ky. 500; State VS..
1901. By approving the act ofithe Speaker, the
General Assembly construed the Constitution to
authorize the people to fill the vacancy at the
general election IN 1856. aud decided that Robert
S. Robertson was elected at that election. That
decision is binding and conclusive upon all tn"
officers and people of the State
The people of the State approved these acts OF
the Speaker and the General Assembly by fail
ing to contest the election of Robert s Robert
SOD, under Section 6 of Article 5, which
is as follows: Contested elections
Of Governor or governor shall
be determined by the General Assembly.
in such manner as may be prescribed by law"
i
scrlbed by law" in Sections 4743, 4744 4745 4746,
r. s, 1881. BY virtue of these provisions any
elector entitled to vote at the election had the
right to contest the election by fling with the
Speaker a specification Of the grounds OF the
contest within twenty days after the first day Of
the session. and the General Assembly had tbs
power to adjudge the election to be invalid and
the Office vacant. Thus, court was in exist
ence try the questions involved and any elect
had the right 10 put the court in motion within
the time named. No eector of the State
saw proper to take the step necessary to
raise the question of the invaditv of the cleo
tion and therefore it must be considered that
the people approved the acts of the Speaker and
the General Assembly in declaring Robert s.
Robertson to be the ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS of the
State. They thus furnished another proof
Of their opinion that the Constitution had been
interpreted by them and the officers Of
the State.
In view of the fact that Robert s. Robertson
was declared elected and took the Office. rs
have stated, and that no elector contested his
slection within the time prescribed by law, it il
now beyond the power of any of the depart
nents of the State government to question thu
7alidity of his election.
For these reasons and others equally cogent
,ut not discussed in this opinion, advise you
hat Robert S. Robertson is the legally elected
of the State and is entitled
o act as a member of the State Board of Equal
cation L. t. MICHENER,